I'm not sure if this belongs on here, but I'd better let one of the others decide

By the way, there is a similar petition, with a few more signatures than this.

I don't see how people can have broadband without a phone line, and therefore paying BT for it. Some of the proponents of this idea seem to gloss over that.

Some of them have also claimed that such products exist in USA and Australia. I read replies on one forum that this was untrue for USA; that AT&T are canvassing market opinion, and in any case the monthly fee will be $20 or more. Perhaps some comments about Australia will be added here

I'm not sure if this belongs on here, but I'd better let one of the others decide

By the way, there is a similar petition, with a few more signatures than this.

I don't see how people can have broadband without a phone line, and therefore paying BT for it. Some of the proponents of this idea seem to gloss over that.

Some of them have also claimed that such products exist in USA and Australia. I read replies on one forum that this was untrue for USA; that AT&T are canvassing market opinion, and in any case the monthly fee will be $20 or more. Perhaps some comments about Australia will be added here

It works very well for me. And I do not pay anything extra for having this freedom. My internet provider does not really advertise that, but they have no choice.

I don't see how people can have broadband without a phone line, and therefore paying BT for it. Some of the proponents of this idea seem to gloss over that.

DSL does require a "phone line", in that you need the physical wire from the phone company. But it's only marketing/rules of the phone company that says you also need "telephone service" on that wire. From a technical standpoint, it's quite possible to have DSL on a "phone line" that doesn't also have "phone service" enabled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy

Some of them have also claimed that such products exist in USA and Australia. I read replies on one forum that this was untrue for USA

Yes and no. It really depends upon the provider. Some telcos (and especially some 3rd party DSL providers, that rent the "phone lines" from the telcos) will sell "Naked DSL" and some don't offer that option. My telco doesn't offer that option, but that doesn't mean that some don't.

NOTE: Most (USA) providers that offer "Naked DSL" do charge a little more for their "Naked DSL" offerings than they do for DSL riding with a telco/phone line (because they don't have the phone service subsidizing the costs of the wire). So some people have found that it's sometimes cheaper to get regular DSL with a minimal phone plan (and just not use the phone), vs paying extra for "Naked DSL". However, in most cases the costs of DSL+phone are still more expensive than the surcharge for "Naked DSL" (without any phone). And so if you really don't want/need the "phone", "Naked DSL" (if offered in your area) can sometimes be a good idea.

Hence one reason to go with cable modem internet providers when using SIP as a phone replacement, so as to avoid buying a redudant phone line when getting your ADSL connection or the inflated surcharge given if you want naked DSL that inexplicably costs as much as what a plain phone line costs.

I think that proponents of the idea here want to compare British Telecom provision of a physical phoneline with cable suppliers' connections, but the latter includes probably a package of TV channels and broadband and maybe telephone for aggregate figures between maybe £20 and £35 a month [don't bother correcting me - no research].

Compared to revenue at that level, and notional cross-subsidies that are probably built in by the TV part being overpriced, we are being told that £5 a month might be possible on a simple phoneline with DSL only, but this is well below what the wholesale cost is claimed to be.

There needs to be some review of the way that the accountants allocate all the costs for it to be able to happen. Going back a few years, a friend who used to work in BT development told me the engineers had a lot of difficulty convincing the management that there was a business case for broadband at all, as they were paranoid about losing pstn revenues.

Goodness knows where the expression came from, however it is there now.......

Anyway, the point is that you simply need the pair of copper wires without telephone service . This is usually called a "dry pair" and has no 48/50volts
applied. This used to be called "energising voltage" in the old days, but is still
present on all PSTN sysyems. The dry pair was never widely advertised since it was only used for specialised purposes - things like alarm systems or other remote operations. In some countries an ISP can order a dry pair from the telco and provide DSL over it to a customer.....no telephone service, so no voltage.
I know that this is available from Bell in Canada.
Presumably someone from BT or Ofcom would know whether it is available to providers in the UK.

It's Mike again....just realised I could have mentioned the parallel situation in the optical-cable world where you can buy or lease a "dark fibre" which is simply a point-to-point optical connection with no terminating equipment.
The buyer provides his own end-terminal which "lights" the cable and these days would be MWDM kit enabling multiple data streams down the one pair of fibres.